R (on the application of AA) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) – YouTube
Supreme Court, 10th July 2013
Category: law reports
BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Chancery Division)
Vallee v Birchwood [2013] EWHC 1449 (Ch) (06 June 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
T v M [2013] EWHC 1585 (Fam) (23 April 2013)
T v M [2013] EWHC 1585 (Fam) (23 April 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Canterbury City Council v Knight [2013] EWHC 1329 (Admin) (03 May 2013)
West Sussex County Council v C [2013] EWHC 1757 (Admin) (30 April 2013)
Arowolo v Department for Work and Pensions [2013] EWHC 1671 (Admin) (30 April 2013)
Marzurkiewicz v District Court In Rzeszow Poland [2013] EWHC 1332 (Admin) (30 April 2013)
Nursing and Midwifery Council v Greenan [2013] EWHC 1256 (Admin) (24 April 2013)
Badzo v District Court In Rokycany Czech Republic [2013] EWHC 1331 (Admin) (01 May 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Sadique (Omar) – WLR Daily
Regina v Sadique (Omar) [2013] EWCA Crim 1150 ; [2013] WLR (D) 269
“Section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 created the offence of encouraging or assisting the commission of one or more offences. Its specific ingredients and the subsequent legislative provisions underlined that an indictment charging a section 46 offence of encouraging one or more offences was permissible.”
WLR Daily, 5th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Harvey – WLR Daily
Regina v Harvey [2013] EWCA Crim 1104; [2013] WLR (D) 268
“If a defendant obtained chattels as a result of his criminal conduct and used them over a substantial period, materially reducing their value before restoring them to their true owners, the court should not give credit for their residual value when making a confiscation order.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
San Vicente and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others – WLR Daily
“An application for permission to amend the grounds of an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which had been made after the expiry of the six-week period allowed by section 288(3) for the institution of section 288 proceedings was governed by CPR r 17.1(2), not by CPR r 17.4.”
WLR Daily, 5th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Sadique v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1150 (05 July 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Chishimba v Royal Borough of Kensington And Chelsea [2013] EWCA Civ 786 (25 March 2013)
Edwards v Flamingo Land Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 801 (05 July 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Ali v Caton & Anor [2013] EWHC 1730 (QB) (05 July 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Edwards v Government of United States of America [2013] EWHC 1906 (Admin) (04 July 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
R (on the application of Sturnham) No 2 (Appellant) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and another (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 3rd July 2013
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
JSC BTA Bank v Ereshchenko [2013] EWCA Civ 1961 (04 July 2013)
Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 814 (04 July 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Polomski v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2013] EWHC 1893 (Admin) (04 July 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd – WLR Daily
Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 1960; [2013] WLR (D) 266
“A bank which had released its charges over property in exchange for a new charge over property purchased from the proceeds of sale of the other property was entitled by subrogation to an unpaid vendor’s lien on the new property.”
WLR Daily, 2nd July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd) – WLR Daily
“Where judgment was given in an English court that a patent, whether English or European, was valid and infringed, and the patent was subsequently retrospectively revoked or amended, whether in England or at the European Patent Office, the defendant was entitled to rely on the fact of the revocation or amendment on an inquiry as to damages in respect of the unamended patent.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dumfries and Galloway Council v North (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) – WLR Daily
“The hypothesis of the second limb of the ‘in the same employment’ test in section 1(6) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 was that the chosen male comparators were to be transferred to do their present jobs in the location where the women claimants worked, while there was no requirement of any real possibility that such a transfer would occur. The question to be answered was whether in the event of such a transfer, however unlikely, the comparators would remain employed on the same or broadly similar terms and conditions to those applicable in their current place of work.”
WLR Daily, 26th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Supreme Court
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46 (3 July 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Harvey, R. v (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA Crim 1104 (03 July 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Smart v The Forensic Science Service Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 783 (02 July 2013)
S (A Child) & Ors v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 771 (02 July 2013)
Force India Formula One Team Ltd v Aerolab Srl & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 780 (03 July 2013)
Frost v Wake Smith and Tofields Solicitors [2013] EWCA Civ 772 (19 June 2013)
McKillen v (Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 781 (03 July 2013)
Malik v Fassenfelt & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 798 (03 July 2013)
Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria [2013] EWCA Civ 785 (02 July 2013)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Say v Howard Gurpinar LLP [2013] EWHC 1386 (QB) (08 March 2013)
Travel and Holidays v Hajj Charter [2013] EWHC 1212 (QB) (28 February 2013)
Lord Chancellor v Woodhall [2013] EWHC 764 (QB) (20 February 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Rrapaj & Ors v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anor [2013] EWHC 1837 (Admin) (02 July 2013)
Agyeikum, R (on the application of) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 1828 (Admin) (02 July 2013)
Stern, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council [2013] EWHC 1460 (Admin) (01 May 2013)
Richards v Government of Ghana [2013] EWHC 1254 (Admin) (16 April 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
HJ (A Child) [2013] EWHC 1867 (Fam) (02 July 2013)
High Court (Commercial Court)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & 16 Ors [2013] EWHC 1869 (Comm) (02 July 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
FG Skerritt Ltd v Caledonian Building Systems Ltd [2013] EWHC 1898 (TCC) (03 July 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Regina v Lawrence – WLR Daily
Regina v Lawrence [2013] EWCA Crim 1054; [2013] WLR (D) 263
“The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) had no power, when allowing an appeal against conviction, either to substitute a plea of guilty in respect of an offence as to which the defendant could not have pleaded or been found guilty or to order retrial.”
WLR Daily, 28th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Edmondson; Regina v Weatherup; Regina v Brooks; Regina v Coulson; Regina v Kuttner – WLR Daily
“A voicemail message which had been received by the intended recipient and subsequently stored in the telecommunications system of the network provider so that the intended recipient might thereafter have continued access to it by playing back the message, remained “in the course of transmission”. The interception of such a voicemail message intentionally and without lawful authority was therefore an offence contrary to section 1 of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.”
WLR Daily, 28th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner North London – WLR Daily
“It was a matter for the court in the exercise of its case management powers, having regard to the overriding objective to deal with cases justly, whether persons directly affected by judicial review proceedings should be joined as interested parties.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Grey v Swansea City and County Council – WLR Daily
Grey v Swansea City and County Council [2013] WLR (D) 260
“A public service vehicle could be ‘used on a road for carrying passengers for hire or reward’, within the terms of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, even if it were not actually in motion on the road, and so failure to display the operator’s disc, which section 18 of the Act required to be fixed to and exhibited on the vehicle, on such a stationary vehicle could constitute a breach of statutory duty.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
BAILII: Recent Decisions
High Court (Administrative Court)
Howard, R (on the application of) v The Official Receiver [2013] EWHC 1839 (Admin) (28 June 2013)
Thompson, R (on the application of) v Oxford City Council [2013] EWHC 1819 (Admin) (28 June 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Green v Astor & Ors [2013] EWHC 1857 (Ch) (28 June 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Source: www.bailii.org.uk
Regina v Austin (Herbert) – WLR Daily
Regina v Austin (Herbert): [2013] EWCA Crim 1028; [2013] WLR (D) 257
“It was the Crown’s responsibility to carry out the duties of disclosure. Judicial involvement could only properly be triggered by an application under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 by the prosecutor or by the defence. There was no provision for a trial judge to superintend the decisions of disclosure made by the prosecution on his own motion by inspecting unused material himself.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte Ltd v Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker – WLR Daily
“The concept of ‘bad faith’ within article 4(4)(g) of Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008 (to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks) was an autonomous concept of European Union law which had to be given a uniform interpretation within the Union. The fact that the applicant for a trade mark registration knew or should have known that a third party was using a mark abroad at the time of filing his application, which was liable to be confused with his mark, was not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the applicant was acting in bad faith. Member states were not permitted to introduce a system of specific protection of foreign marks which differed from the system established by article 4(4)(g) and which was based on the fact that the person making the application for registration of a mark knew or should have known of a foreign mark.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
